67 MPG (US) Ford Focus ECOnetic announced

[Seasoned Oak]

As gas prices jump upward, just the opposite is happening. Right now there is a surge in high mpg car sales.

As the US automakers pointed out many times there is not much profit to be had selling small cars. High MPG cars tend to be small.
Sales and profit do not always go hand in hand. Now that GM and Chrysler have unloaded a lot of baggage perhaps they can sell small cars at a profit now.

 

[MishMouse]

If you go to Ford's European Site http://www.ford.co.uk/ and look around there you will see that Ford makes some fairly big cars that get good MPG. Its just that they are not sold here.

 

[begreen]

Incredibly promising Focus, this sort of thing needs to come to the US. I have high hopes that the newer deisels in the BMW 3 series and VW's are going to go a long way to changing US attitudes in general about deisels...unfortunately much of our national perception of deisels is based on the horrible GM gas-deisel converted cars from the late 70's. They don't sounds like dump trucks anymore, nor do they spew massive clouds of black soot everywhere.

Been wondering why hybrid car's don't use small turbodeisels and work more like a deisel-electric locomotive. You could run a little 2 cylinder turbodeisel as an electric generator and do away with most of the heavy weight and high cost of a hybrid...the batteries and just run a small bank of batteries to hold enough charge to filter out any power spikes and run the accessories for a couple hours or so.

Citroen/Peugeot has been working on that approach I think. Also, there is a little trailer being designed for the Nissan Leaf that contains an aux. battery pack and a small diesel generator.

 

[begreen]

If you go to Ford's European Site http://www.ford.co.uk/ and look around there you will see that Ford makes some fairly big cars that get good MPG. Its just that they are not sold here.

Yes, there is a shifting in the market. The auto dealers are finding that folks that buy a small car don't necessarily want a barebones box. This is the way small cars used to be made, some were absolutely spartan. Nowadays, the market for well-equipped small cars is doing quite well. Look at the success of the BMW Mini for example.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

.unfortunately much of our national perception of deisels is based on the horrible GM gas-deisel converted cars from the late 70's. They don't sounds like dump trucks anymore, nor do they spew massive clouds of black soot everywhere.

.

Well they(GM)really vindicated themselves with the Duramax diesel 6.6 They been putting in HD pickup trucks since 2001.
Those babies are bulletproof , have 2 in the family. First diesel i ever saw that could squeal the tires. Ford and Dodge have been playin catch up ever since. Amazing MPG as well low 20s on the Hwy for a 6500LB truck empty. 3970HP 765 Ftlbs torque.
Engine can be dialed up to 600 HP quite easily with a simple Mod although you may void the warranty.
They also have a little brother the 4.5 Duramax waiting in the wings. was about to launch it for light duty suberban ,van, 1/2 ton PU ect when the bottom fell out on the truck market in 08. I hear they can do mid-high 20s MPG

 

[Jags]

They also have a little brother the 4.5 Duramax waiting in the wings. was about to launch it for light duty suberban ,van, 1/2 ton PU ect when the bottom fell out on the truck market in 08. I hear they can do mid-high 20s MPG

If they are not jumping all over that RIGHT NOW, they are fools. One of the reasons that the foreign competitors were/are so successful is that they are more nimble getting to the market with a product that is being sought. Why would they sit on such a thing? There IS a CURRENT market for such things. (look at how the Dodge sprinter came into the market).

 

[Flatbedford]

There IS a CURRENT market for such things. (look at how the Dodge sprinter came into the market).

...or the Mitsubishi Fuso, or the Izuzu, or the one that International and Ford sell. There have been small fuel efficient diesel trucks in the US for years , but only in the commercial market.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

They also have a little brother the 4.5 Duramax waiting in the wings. was about to launch it for light duty suberban ,van, 1/2 ton PU ect when the bottom fell out on the truck market in 08. I hear they can do mid-high 20s MPG

If they are not jumping all over that RIGHT NOW, they are fools. One of the reasons that the foreign competitors were/are so successful is that they are more nimble getting to the market with a product that is being sought. Why would they sit on such a thing? There IS a CURRENT market for such things. (look at how the Dodge sprinter came into the market).

The buzz is they are preparing it again for launch,i guess they are busy with the volt,and the truck market is once again declining but i would think this particular model would sell well.

 

[begreen]

Citroen/Peugeot has been working on that approach I think. Also, there is a little trailer being designed for the Nissan Leaf that contains an aux. battery pack and a small diesel generator.

My error, it's not for the Leaf. Looks like it might be a Mopar product designed for the Bambini. It costs almost as much as the car and it actually pushes the car to expend range.

(broken link removed)

has already been done in this neat project:

http://www.mrsharkey.com/pusher.htm

 

[begreen]

There IS a CURRENT market for such things. (look at how the Dodge sprinter came into the market).

...or the Mitsubishi Fuso, or the Izuzu, or the one that International and Ford sell. There have been small fuel efficient diesel trucks in the US for years , but only in the commercial market.

Funny, in the past couple days I just happened to have followed late-80's Toyota and Isuzu diesel pickups. They seemed to be running strong still.

 

[Flatbedford]

Don't for get the VW Diesel pickup of the late '70s
http://www.mpgomatic.com/45_MPG_Pickup_Truck.html

 

[begreen]

Yes, I knew a friend that had that truck, twas quite the dog, but reliable. What surprised me about the Toyota and Isuzu was how well they were accelerating up a fairly steep hill. I was thinking I was going to have to pass them, but they kept right up with traffic.

 

[Flatbedford]

I think that the need for every vehicle to be fast is not helping the fuel efficiency thing. There was a time that trucks went up hills slowly and that was OK. Why do light trucks have to have the same horsepower as medium duty trucks when they are run empty or nearly empty most of the time? I want a full size 4x4 pickup with a diesel engine with similar power and torque output as the 300 cid inline six that my '83 Ford F250 had. I think it was rated at about 120 hp and 200 ftlb torque. It was no dragster, but it could move anything as long as I was not in a big hurry. It got around 15 mpg. A diesel with similar output would surely use much less fuel than that and still make the truck quite capable, especially with a modern 5 or 6 speed transmission.

 

[begreen]

True. Reliable, efficient and gets the job done are good attributes for a truck. Speed is not everything.

 

[Jags]

I think that the need for every vehicle to be fast is not helping the fuel efficiency thing. There was a time that trucks went up hills slowly and that was OK. Why do light trucks have to have the same horsepower as medium duty trucks when they are run empty or nearly empty most of the time? I want a full size 4x4 pickup with a diesel engine with similar power and torque output as the 300 cid inline six that my '83 Ford F250 had. I think it was rated at about 120 hp and 200 ftlb torque. It was no dragster, but it could move anything as long as I was not in a big hurry. It got around 15 mpg. A diesel with similar output would surely use much less fuel than that and still make the truck quite capable, especially with a modern 5 or 6 speed transmission.

Flatbed - you have hit on a topic that I have stated many times. I don't need a pickup that can squeal its tires with 3000 pounds in the bed. It was on this forum in the past that I have stated - give me a 4x4 with the same performance as my jeep (230hp/230 ftlb of torque) and it will do everything that I will ask of it. Heck in a diesel model that would equate to ~160hp. AND...you could still get the economy side of the world. I don't need a race truck.

 

[begreen]

Not while you've got that racing chair!

 

[Jags]

Not while you've got that racing chair!

Hmmm...that would be quite a ride.

Naaa...if I wanna go have fun on the roads I pull the Challenger out of the shed.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

I think that the need for every vehicle to be fast is not helping the fuel efficiency thing. There was a time that trucks went up hills slowly and that was OK. Why do light trucks have to have the same horsepower as medium duty trucks when they are run empty or nearly empty most of the time? I want a full size 4x4 pickup with a diesel engine with similar power and torque output as the 300 cid inline six that my '83 Ford F250 had. I think it was rated at about 120 hp and 200 ftlb torque. It was no dragster, but it could move anything as long as I was not in a big hurry. It got around 15 mpg. A diesel with similar output would surely use much less fuel than that and still make the truck quite capable, especially with a modern 5 or 6 speed transmission.

Flatbed - you have hit on a topic that I have stated many times. I don't need a pickup that can squeal its tires with 3000 pounds in the bed. It was on this forum in the past that I have stated - give me a 4x4 with the same performance as my jeep (230hp/230 ftlb of torque) and it will do everything that I will ask of it. Heck in a diesel model that would equate to ~160hp. AND...you could still get the economy side of the world. I don't need a race truck.

THe reason GM dodge and Ford are duelling over HP and Torque is they are for pulling 17000 LB horse trailers ,campers, boats ect. with these HD trucks
Yes the 4.5 little duramax still has 300HP which is plenty for a light duty truck or suv ,even more than enough. 300hp means more in a diesel than it does in a gasser.

 

[Jags]

Yes the 4.5 little duramax still has 300HP which is plenty for a light duty truck or suv ,even more than enough.

That is my point exactly. Why 300HP at (probably) 400ftlbs of torque? I pull my utility trailer with 3000 pound loads or my fishing boat with ease with my 235 ftlbs of torque Jeep. I mean really easy. As in it doesn't come out of overdrive, unless climbing a fairly steep hill. It has more acceleration than I use (or would want to for that matter).

 

[jdemaris]

I want a full size 4x4 pickup with a diesel engine with similar power and torque output as the 300 cid inline six that my '83 Ford F250 had. I think it was rated at about 120 hp and 200 ftlb torque. .

GM tried it starting in 1982 up to early 90s and sales were lousy. GM is the only one that made an effort to put a low power diesel for their own design in a full-size half-ton truck.

I suspect one problem is that USA-Americans seem convinced that diesels are more powerful than gas engines - and actually it's the opposite. I know when the 6.2 (378 c.i.) diesels came out, many new owners thought they ought to have more power then 350 gasers instead of less. Seems even today, many still believe the "more power" myth. Even the story about diesels having more torque is not true. Take a gas engine and a diesel engine with the same bore and stroke and the gas will have more horsepower, and more or equal torque at the same RPMs. It just so happens that since diesels are usually made for HD use, they tend to have long stroke versus smaller bore -which makes torque. Gas engines in cars are usually oposite. Big bore and short stroke to make high RPMs.

In the auto industry, it is rare to find a gas and diesel with the same bore and stroke, It is very comon though with farm tractors and all the test specs are around to be read. As I recall, the only engine made by one of the big three that came as gas or diesel was the late 70s, early 80s Oldsmobile 350. Same bore and stroke for each and the gas version had more horsepower and more torque. Isuzu and Nissan also did it, but just with small engines. 1.8 Isuzu diesel used in Chevy Chevettes and Isuzu Imarks was also available in gas version.

The 6.2 V8 diesel that Detroit Diesel designed for GM was intended to be an equal power replacement for the 305 c.i. gas engine. 136 max. horse and 240 lbs. of torque at 2000 RPM. Just about exactly the same max horse and torque as the 305, but could get 20 MPG instead of 14 MPG.

A few others tried but did even worse. Jeep with a Perkins diesel in the 60s, Dodge tried one year (1978) with a small 6 cylinder Mistubishi diesel, etc.

I don't believe anything has changed today. Low power vehicles made for utilty and fuel economy always fail in the USA except during times of crisis.

305 (5 liter) GM V8 gas engine - 140 horse at 4000 RPM and 235 lbs. torque at 2000 RPM.
378 (6.2 liter) GM V8 diesel engine - 130 horse at 3600 RPM and 240 lbs. torque at 2000 RPM.
300 (5 liter) Ford 300 in-line six - 115 horse at 3000 RPM and 223 lbs. torque as 1600 RPM.
243 (3.9 liter) Dodge-Mitsubishi in-line six - 100 horse at 3700 RPM and 165 lbs. torque at 2200 RPM.

 

[begreen]

90's vintage 4 cyl Ranger or Toyota pickups are plentiful and sold well. There are many high milers still on the road today. They aren't fast and need to be geared down for power, but I have moved many cords of wood (and the Alderlea) by taking my time ours. Unloaded on the highway we get in the low 30mpg range. With my previous Ranger I could hit 35 mpg, mostly because there was nothing hanging on the engine besides the alternator and it had a manual, OD transmission. It was slow but steady. I sold it to a flooring installer who is still using it daily.

 

[jdemaris]

90's vintage 4 cyl Ranger or Toyota pickups are plentiful and sold well. There are many high milers still on the road today. They aren't fast and need to be geared down for power, but I have moved many cords of wood (and the Alderlea) by taking my time ours. Unloaded on the highway we get in the low 30mpg range. With my previous Ranger I could hit 35 mpg, mostly because there was nothing hanging on the engine besides the alternator and it had a manual, OD transmission. It was slow but steady. I sold it to a flooring installer who is still using it daily.

I still have my 85 Isuzu 2.2 liter diesel 4WD PUP truck. Great rig that gets around 33 MPG at best. It's not a full-size truck though. There were many "mini" diesel or not-quite-truck diesels made 60s-80s, None sold well including the Ford Rangers with the Mazda-Perkins diesels, Chevy S10s and GMC S15s with Isuzu diesels, Jeeps with Perkins diesels, IH Scouts with Nissan diesels, Chevy LUVs with Isuzu diesels, Dodge mini-Rams with Mitsubishi diesels, Volkswagen Rabbit diesel mini trucks, etc. None sold well - but the Volkswagens had the biggest run.

 

[begreen]

I should qualify my previous statement, our Rangers were gasoline vehicles and I was referring to the gas Toyota pickups which are as common as trees out here. Point being, there is a huge market for lower horsepower trucks. It just seemed that somewhere around 2000 marketing decided that trucks needed to be bigger, brawnier and more macho. I have to laugh because one day I was watching a poor sod loading his new Ford pickup with the tailgate like 4ft off the ground. I do half the lifting for the same load.

 

[Flatbedford]

How about one of these with a Ford/Dodge/Chevy full size cab on it?
(broken link removed to http://www.mitfuso.com/en-US/Models/FG4X4)
4x4, 7k payload, 4cyl diesel.

 

[begreen]

Displacement 183 cu. in (3.0 L)

Max. output (SAE, gross) 161 hp @ 3500 rpm

Max. torque (SAE, gross) 295 lb.-ft. @ 1600 rpm

And it has a cup holder! Sold.